Here is a story about a woman who put an ad on a church bulletin board, which got her in trouble with the government. Whether she has the right to ask for a specific type of person to share her home is subject to debate. But what interested me most is the fact that she can be subjected to "training". What type training? How to write an ad? Will it cost her money for the teacher? Will there be a graduation ceremony (or a prom)? If there's a prom, must her date be of the opposite sex?

Most likely no prom or graduation ...but she does need to know the law. I mean, would she advertise for only white roommates? It's the same thing, according to the law. It's an interesting case, and being a nursing student, she needs to be a little more diverse, I think.

"Training" sounds rather sinister to me, as if used in the sense that "re-education" was used in Maoist China.
It might not mean that but it certainly can carry the idea of altering someone's views to make them conform.

If nothing else, she seems to be guilty of stupidity. She advertised on the church bulletin board, so almost everyone who saw it would be Christian anyway. I agree that the use of the word "training" has an echo of communism in this context.

Training = reintegration: learning, understanding, and acceptance.

Training to me (haven't we talked about this here before?) is more skill oriented then intellectually oriented. That's why I think it fits well in this context. However, my perspective might be different from yours.

You mean she needs more skill in writing ads?

Here's what the article says:

quote:

"Our interest really lies in her getting some training so that this doesn't happen again," she said.

In this case I don't think the Michigan Department of Civil Rights is interested in teaching her any skill, but rather in teaching her about the law. In other words, indoctrination. I think Orwell's definition of reintegration fits well here: learning, understanding, and acceptance.

No. She needs to learn about the Civil Rights laws. That, to me, is a skill to learn.

It strikes me as both odd and dangerous that the government can make someone take training (with its attendant cost) for a non-crime.

quote:

Originally posted by tinman:

In this case I don't think the Michigan Department of Civil Rights is interested in teaching her any skill, but rather in teaching her about the law. In other words, indoctrination. I think Orwell's definition of reintegration fits well here: learning, understanding, and acceptance.

Seems a bit harsh to call teaching about the law indoctrination.

There is, of course, the old saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". However, I don't think that knowledge of the law should be mandatory.

I think the whole idea that people here have about training is, to quote goofy, "a bit harsh." I have never thought of training as being negative, but I sense that here as I read others' posts. In this case the writer seemed a bit naive to me, but then, as arnie said, she was writing in a church bulletin so they probably should have left her alone.

Still, this is a very important law to Americans, and I, for one, am glad to see the authorities taking it seriously.

I think the issue that I have, which may sound harsh, is that IF the training is simply ten minutes saying "this is the law, next time obey it" then it's fine BUT if the training is any longer then it's probably going to be aimed at changing her attitude rather than her knowledge and that's where I have a problem.
I don't believe that you should try to change social attitudes by training because that's almost a definition of brainwashing.

It reminds me of that problem I had with the day of "equal opportunities" training I received (and moaned endlessly about) last year. What I wanted to know was the details of the equal opportunities legislation and what I got was a seven hour harangue filled with half-truths, misinformation and downright nonsense aimed at reshaping the opinions of a hall full of people into something resembling those of the trainer.

quote:

and what I got was a seven hour harangue filled with half-truths, misinformation and downright nonsense aimed at reshaping the opinions of a hall full of people into something resembling those of the trainer.

Well, I see your point, but I wouldn't call the changing of attitudes "training" anyway; that's more the indoctrination that was cited above. Training is training. Period. The writer sounded naive and needed a little training on the subject.

The bit in the article that concerns me most is that apparently this woman only advertised on her church bulletin board. It is not, presumably, a public forum meant for all readers, like a newspaper or other formal publication. Should public laws of this nature really apply to private communications? Let's say I was sending an email out to people in my address book and said something similar, should I be prosecuted?

Many of you make good points about the remark being in a church bulletin, and then I read this from a recent Clarence Page column :

quote:

Efforts to protect one group sometimes can offend others, as in Grand Rapids, Mich., where state civil rights officials are investigating an unnamed 33-year-old woman for posting an advertisement at her church last July seeking a "Christian roommate."

That violates fair housing laws, the director of the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan told Fox News. "No exemptions."

You don't have to be paranoid to wonder whether cases like that are filed by somebody who deliberately wants to make fair housing laws look bad.

I have the utmost respect for Clarence Page, as well as the rest of you here. I think I stand corrected. Since she published this in a church bulletin, there shouldn't be a problem. Had it been in a Chicago Tribune ad, I might feel differently.

BTW, take a look at that Page article and how he defines political correctness:

quote:

Political correctness generally is defined as a ban, usually unwritten, against language or practices that could offend women, minorities and other legally or socially protected groups.

Personally I prefer to call it by the old-fashioned label that my parents taught me: good manners.

But PC becomes more problematic when it tries to codify what's going to offend people or even violate rights when people and situations can be so different.

He makes a good point about calling it "old-fashioned good manners."

Suppose she had written, "Roommate wanted. Must be gay." Is that better or worse?

Funny...but it would be worse if it said, "Roommate wanted. Must be straight."

Much more important to me would be "roommate wanted:must not snore".

quote:

but it would be worse if it said, "Roommate wanted. Must be straight."

Why would that be worse? Surely the issue here is equal opportunities. Discriminating in favour of a minority is no better than discriminating in favour of a majority.

I don't know about England, but here discrimination is more toward gays than straights so pointing out that you only wanted a straight roommate would be construed as discriminatory.

So being anti-discrimination means favoring the minority? How undemocratic!

Here's an update on the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
Here's an update on the situation.

So, the director of the local director of the Fair Housing Center said "It's an advertisement that clearly violates the Fair Housing Act," and the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department said it didn't. Who needs "training" now?

I had a "training" day yesterday. Half a day was depressing corporate brainwashing aimed at convincing us to buy into the current college "vision" (I don't) and the other half was looking up attendance figures on our database and copying them onto an SAR (self-assessment report) neither of which legitimately counts as training or can be put down on my CPD record.

I'm seriously considering my other options, such as quitting and teaching abroad or quitting the business altogether.

Those overly PC types need a dose of First Amendment! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E..._the_First_Amendment

She was IN HER CHURCH!!! They could also use a dose of liberalism! See definition 5: http://www.merriam-webster.com...?show=0&t=1289056851

I am not a christian, and dislike religion in general, BUT, I support her right to discriminate in private matters, and this, given its place and intent, is a private matter. Big Brother, BUTT OUT!!!

quote:

I'm seriously considering my other options, such as quitting and teaching abroad or quitting the business altogether.

Oh, Bob, we'd love to have you teaching here!

I think, frankly, that people are over-reacting to all of this. In a sense what she did was violating the Act, I think, but HUD did not want to go forward with prosecuting that. I can see that. You do have to make those kinds of judgments.

I also think that people are reading a whole lot into "training." It is not, in my mind, indoctrination or meant to change attitudes. That's something else. So maybe, Bob, your college is calling it "training" when it really is something else?